Revision as of 21:45, 5 January 2012

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request that Arbitrators use their power to gain access to relevant official IRC channel logs to determine if they are evidentiary

1) One element of complaint in the underlying disputes over civility has been that administrative actions may have been discussed on official IRC channels maintained by wikimedia for the purposes of discussing and improving wikipedias, en.wikipedia, cross wikipedia administration, and en.wikipedia administration. The guidelines provided at wikimedia for the #wikipedia-en-admins channel repeatedly refers to the potential for conduct issues of improper formation of consensus off wikipedia, and, arbitrator oversight is assumed in the channel's userlist. Separate from the complaint in the underlying dispute, the explicit and repeated prohibition on using the IRC channels for off-encyclopaedia formation of administrative action is a reasonable cause to believe that such behaviour may occur in that space. Obviously evidence would be required for claiming such a thing.

But evidence is not available, by design. None of these channels keep public logs, and so users cannot submit evidence based on official logs. These channels prohibit the taking and use of private logs without permission from all involved parties. Some of these channels, such as #wikipedia-en-admins keep private logs that they claim are accessible on arbitrator order for the use of arbitrators. Some of these channels are not accessible to non-administrators, and so members of the community cannot even have viewed them "live" as WP:AN/I or WP:AN may be viewed live in order to bear witness from experience without the benefit of logs.

Given that members of the community are restricted from accessing these logs to determine if they have any evidentiary value in relation to the formation of consensus or the development of decisions regarding administrative action, I request that Arbitrators use what powers they have to:

1a) Obtain such logs for a suitably deep time period in relation to the underlying dispute of failure to administer and conduct civilly (this may be months, I do not know the time scope arbitrators believe holds for their case)

1b) Examine such logs for their evidentiary benefit in relation to this case

1c) Where possible and appropriate, make such logs, or redactions of such logs, or summaries of such logs available for viewing by members of the wikipedia community. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I have no idea what you're talking about, Fifelfoo. There is no ability of the Arbitration Committee to "subpoena" IRC channel logs. There are also literally hundreds of IRC channels where Misplaced Pages is discussed that have absolutely nothing to do with Misplaced Pages or Wikimedia, and they aren't even under the nominal control of the Wikimedia IRC channel contacts. Further, I cannot imagine any arbitrator voluntarily reading through thousands of hours of IRC drivel. Risker (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Jehochman, there is not now, nor has there ever been, a "duty" of the Arbitration Committee to supervise the proper use of official IRC channels. That is the responsibility of the channel operators and channel contacts. If you look at the link provided by Fifelfoo, you will see that not a single arbitrator is a channel contact or channel operator. In fact, most arbitrators do not use IRC at all. Risker (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jehochman, please feel free to make your proposal here. The Arbitration Committee does not control IRC channels. Risker (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Fifelfoo, not happening. The channel is not centrally logged; some users may have logs for portions of the period between March 2007 (when Malleus Fatuorum started editing) and present, but they are not compellable and there is no way to be certain they are unmodified. I am not aware of any time that the Arbitration Committee has ever requested copies of channel logs during the entire time I have been on the Committee, and it will not be happening this time. You're proposing a fishing expedition. Risker (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Fifelfoo, "the people at Meta" most certainly do not claim to keep copies of logs specifically for Arbcom review. That paragraph hasn't been updated since it was written by FT2 in 2008, as far as I can see, but it does not claim in any way that a set of logs is maintained for Arbcom review. Risker (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

@GiacomoReturned: That was in 2007. In June 2011, the Arbitration Policy was ratified by the community and does not include any authority in relation to IRC channels. What Jimmy Wales said four years ago has been superceded. Risker (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

-sigh- Of the four admins involved in the case (Alexandria, Thumperward, John, and Hawkeye7), only one of those idles -admins. Me. I don't see how releasing the logs will accomplish anything. Alexandria (chew out) 16:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Seems impractical; we're talking about pages and pages of logs here. --Rschen7754 01:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's fishing; and it's fishy. My76Strat (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not fishing for ArbCom to perform their duty to supervise proper use of the official IRC channels. There is no public scrutiny of the channel, so this is the only way to make sure the channels are not being misused. Have any arbitrators have been watching that channel regularly? It is also not impractical to download the logs and perform a text search to look for a unique keyword like "Malleus", a word not used in everyday conversion, and see if any admins were improperly plotting to block an editor. Given access to the logs, I could do this in a few minutes. There are several people on the committee with sufficient skills to to do the job. Jehochman 11:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@Risker, why then is there an official en-wikipedia-admins channel? If ArbCom can't supervise the admins convening there, it ought to be shut down for the sake of transarency. Jehochman 21:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Risker:

• "Arbcom may also have access to confirmed copies of the private channel logs allowing them to check what may have actually happened in case of dispute." (meta).
• Since the early 1970s string based text searching has been available. I am assuming that at least one drafter has access to a computer with grep, spotlight, emacs, vi or a modern text editor. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. wikipedia-en-admins claim at meta to keep logs specifically for people in your role. The other 3 relevant channels don't necessarily do so. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I apologise if I have a reading comprehension issue, but I checked this repeatedly before asking for this, and "Arbcom may also have access to confirmed copies of the private channel logs allowing them to check what may have actually happened in case of dispute." is clear to my reading. "confirmed copies" indicates that they have some method of maintaining logs that are good. "private channel logs" reads to me in relation to the privacy of the channel, not the privacy of the logs. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• The Arbcom and J Wales have complete control over wikipedia-en-admins per this official announcement from Jimbo himself: J Wales announcing his and the Arbcom's control of wikipedia-en-admins. Ther Arbcom only have t ask the opperators for the relevant logs or information, allthough I expect some of them are in the channel a lot of the time anyway. Giacomo Returned 08:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• If ArbCom has no authority over the admin IRC channel, then I think the community needs to have a discussion about shutting that channel down. Misplaced Pages should not have a backchannel with no regulation, or regulation by a few self-selected individuals. Jehochman 14:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• How do you reconcile this assertion of authority over IRC behavior with your (Risker) statement that ArbCom has no authority over the official en-Misplaced Pages IRC channels? Jehochman 17:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

No blocking or unblocking

1) The two most divisive things administrators can do are:

• blocking MF
• unblocking MF

Therefore all administrators who are not sitting members of ArbCom are enjoined from taking either action.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 20:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitrators are not meant to be super-admins, and should have no additional authority outside ArbCom matters. It is true that some Arbs are widely respected and their views are accorded disproportionate weight, but I suggest that this is because of their reputations and not their status as Arbitrator - for example, NewYorkBrad had already earned subsantial community respect before he joined ArbCom, and I believe he will continue to be influential and respected after he retires from ArbCom.

It is unfortunately also the case that some members of ArbCom have provoked considerable controversy in acting in a de facto super-admin manner. One simple example was Coren's blocking of Giano during the Randy / alleged outing incident, a block that was divisive and reversed almost immediately. That incident is significant to this motion in two regards: firstly, it shows an Arbitrator whose judgement was not up to the sort of authority this motion contemplates granting in a particular case. Secondly, that incident led almost immediately to an RfAr request in which it was clear that internal ArbCom disagreements were going to be a factor. ArbCom declined to take the case, which makes me concerned that a proposal such as this could result in unilateral super-admin action which ArbCom would decline to review. ArbCom is meant to be a review body and there are good reasons for Arbitrators to avoid acting in areas which are likely to become cases. Consequently, Arbitrators should not be directed to act as first responders in the case of potentially highly contentious blocks. EdChem (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you come with five to ten non ArbCom administrators with absolutely stunning judgement? Nothing Malleus has ever done has triggered as much disruption as hese last two wheel wars. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

However well intended, this is a bad idea. My76Strat (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Malleus should not be untouchable. However, I would certainly consider "Malleus Regular editors should not be blocked or unblocked for a pattern of generally uncivil behaviour without clear community consensus". Civility blocks are too subjective and causes too many issues. Worm · (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see already 10 different ways this could go wrong, and Administrators *should* know how to behave. If you want to single out one or two admins who are wheel-warring, then we might be able to look into that. Otherwise, were asking for trouble. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Take a break from pissing people off

2) Malleus has been around long enough to know the type of things that aggravate his detractors (justified or not). Malleus is enjoined from, broadly construed, pissing people off until this case is resolved. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 20:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

All editors are expected to avoid pissing people off at all times. Is Malleus so out of control that this needs to be specified? Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Malleus may be right now, excluding the God-King, the most watched editor in the history of Misplaced Pages. Arbcom will be told by many of anything deemed out of line. Also, all of his good deeds will be presented to the Committee. This is the least of our concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Since Malleus's block expired, he seems to be right back to unhelpful comments. My recommendation is that, to minimize disruption, ArbCom pass a motion that Malleus be restricted solely to commenting at the case, and nowhere else. --Elonka 17:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Help me understand your proposal. Once this case is resolved, Malleus can return to pissing people off?--Buster Seven Talk 10:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Redundant to current policy WP:CIVIL My76Strat (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with My76Strat here, but also Elonka's idea has one flaw in that we might have to give a block to enforce that, impeding the case. If it's bad enough, issue a timed block. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Question from Wehwalt to Hawkeye7

Hawkeye7, can you demonstrate that you were aware of Malleus's subsequent comment (the one with "Goodbye Misplaced Pages" on it) prior to your block of him?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry. I do not know how to do this. My browser logs show the date and visit count. I distinctly remember the "suicide by admin" comment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Question from My76Strat to Malleus Fatuorum

Malleus Fatuorum, Please consider wp:npa where it states: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Upon reflection, do you believe you remain fully compliant with this policy each time you edit on Misplaced Pages? My76Strat (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you believe that you or anyone else here does? The policy is so floppily worded in any event as to be a bit of a joke. Is it really always a "personal attack" to comment on an editor? (Hint: think carefully before you answer.) Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. My76Strat (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Question to Alexandria

Did you ever discuss via IRC, or other off-wiki channel, the blocking, unblocking or sanctioning of Malleus? Are you aware of any other parties to this case participating in such off-wiki discussions? I'm not asking you to reveal any irrelevant confidences, but if there were discussions about how to handle an ostensibly disruptive editor, those discussions are relevant to this proceeding. The existence of such conversations should be disclosed, or you can go on the record saying there were no discussions. Sunlight is a good way to dispel suspicions. Jehochman 18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Like every big on-wiki event that causes mass drama, there's bound to be off-wiki discussion and not just limited to IRC discussions. This is nothing new and not exclusive to the -admins channel, you know that. I have not had any interaction on IRC with any of the other parties to my knowledge. As I said above, Thumperward, John, and Hawkeye7 do not idle -admins. Additionally, if any of the other parties, aside from myself, idle in any irc channels on freenode, I'm not in those channels. As you are an admin yourself, you are welcome to idle the -admins channel as well if you're wondering personally what goes on. Alexandria (chew out) 19:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Jehochman

Proposed principles

Civility

1) Civility is one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. All editors, whether experienced or new, are expected to maintain decorum appropriate for a professional workspace.

1.1) Civility is one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. All editors, whether experienced or new, are expected to maintain decorum appropriate to the academic project of writing an encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would change the last few words: "....are expected to maintain decorum appropriate to building an encyclopedia." SirFozzie (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

While the nature of the project we're working on is one that tends to be considered professional, we are volunteers scattered all across the globe. I'd suggest something along the lines of "maintain decorum appropriate to a collaborative environment," as in order for the project to function at all we have to be able to work with one another. Hersfold 22:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Would prefer to simply quote the pillar rather than make up new paraphrasing. None of the proposed wordings (particularly the use of the word "decorum") is suitable. Risker (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Something like this is obviously needed. Jehochman 12:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"are expected to maintain decorum appropriate for a professional workspace" is a strongly classed sociolectical imposition. Editors are actually expected to maintain decorum appropriate for an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Civility is one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. All editors, whether experienced or new, should not use language that is defamatory, racist, vulgar, hateful, obscene, profane, threatening, insulting or offensive. Leaky Caldron 23:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Introducing policy via Arbitration are we? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, there is a logical flaw in the argument that because Misplaced Pages is not a professional environment, but a volunteer environment, then professional standards are not needed. There are plenty of volunteer organisations that maintain professional standards of civility despite not being professional organisations. Whether it is possible for Misplaced Pages to do that is another matter. My view is that it is the public and enduring (written) nature of the edits made on Misplaced Pages that means people need to hold themselves to a really high standard. Some of the comments made on Misplaced Pages will be around and still retrievable and readable long after any indiscreet comment made verbally to someone is forgotten. People can post to Misplaced Pages in a 'verbal' style as if they are talking, but they are actually writing (technically: publishing in a persistently archived online environment). If you were writing a pen-and-ink letter, would you litter that with expletives and chatty comments? Maybe all posts on Misplaced Pages could start "Dear Sir" and end "Yours sincerely" (as if writing to the letters page of The Times) - I am being slightly facetious here. The point is that there is a vast range of possible communication styles, some specific to online interactions. Where does that fit in with your remarks about 'sociolectical imposition'? Carcharoth (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be fallacious to argue that all volunteer organisations do not use "professional" standards. However, that isn't what has been argued. Most organisations don't use "professional" standards. Most organisations use business or religious standards that involve subordination. Misplaced Pages doesn't formally subordinate its volunteers. Moreover, the standards of professionals that I've seen involve high levels of coded backbiting—and we're back to a civility problem but with ten dollar words. If we tour the archives of the volunteer based productive elements of USENET, we'll observe both things that would be personal attacks here and people using the words fuck and cunt as emphatics. People are happy to treat discursive writing moments as spoken writing moments, some as USENET demonstrates are less formal than colloquial spoken. From my experience of RS/N we get newer editors transitioning to full membership of the encyclopaedic community. They write in sociolects that aren't "professional." They write in sociolects that are highly colloquial in the sense of closely related to their spoken forms. If arbitrators ignore the perennial policy consensus against imposing a language gag, then, we are going to lose a large body of potential editors and editors whose natural sociolects involve occasional and civil swearing. Editors begin writing in their spoken sociolects, even as they transition towards a wikipedia "code" (NPA! V! Dispute Resolution, etc...) they still retain much of their sociolect. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting. If you haven't written an essay on this, you should. And then tell more people about it. I had been thinking of USENET (or the various flavours of bulletin boards) as the closest thing to a persistently archived environment similar to Misplaced Pages, but you've brought in your experience at RS/N, which is invaluable. Have you looked at other areas of Misplaced Pages to see if similar 'transitioning' behaviour is seen? Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Getting a bit off-topic now, maybe best continued somewhere else?

It might be interesting but I'm struggling with its applicability in this case. MF does not need to transition in the way described. He is extremely intelligent, articulate and erudite and chooses the style he wishes to use as fitting the circumstances he encounters. I am certain his "sociolect" does not influence him and I think he would be appalled at the suggestion. We do not allow patois in article space, even though its use is increasing in street language among certain "sociolects". Regardless of "sociolect", it is asking little in a project than anyone can contribute to abide by simple civility guidelines in which racist, vulgar, hateful, obscene, profane, threatening, insulting or offensive interactions are not tolerated.(Incidentally, that list is taken from the T&C of a moderated forum inhabited by English speaking members from all "sociolects"). Leaky Caldron 13:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If we hold you to my normative values system that's fine; if you attempt to hold me to yours that's not fine. Your slander is my emphatic; your analysis is my hateful. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have almost no idea what you mean. If you are saying that anyone can say anything to anyone using any expression they choose because that is their "shtick" then I totally disagree. Leaky Caldron 13:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion that a particular moral code is adequate for wikipedia is fundamentally offensive. It is fundamentalism. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are implying but I'll tell you what, I've not had the pleasure of working with you and I will be delighted to keep it that way. Leaky Caldron 18:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Meaningless by itself, please see User:Nobody Ent/Notes on civility. While civility is a pillar, so is consensus, and that's what's consistently lacking in these discussions.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

SirFozzi's articulation is understandable, but quite meaningless. The whole point is: what level of decorum is "appropriate to building an encyclopedia"? Some people think that level is the same as a bunch of guys down the pub, some as a bunch of women in a church. If you make a comparison here to a workplace or something, you take us somewhere. But the only place where many users are "building an encyclopedia" is Misplaced Pages - so all you are saying is "Misplaced Pages expects a decorum appropriate to Misplaced Pages" which is to say precisely nothing.--Scott Mac 22:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A lack of decorum creates social tension and that is what it's like to edit with and around editors like Edito Fatoreum. Is he irratible today? Will his bully tactics surface? There is always tension; always hoping that no-one says anything to upset him. Hoping that he is in a playful mood. Hoping he and his minions don't take over the discussion and it crashes and burns. Buster Seven Talk 09:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Reversing administrative decisions

2) Administrators are required to respect the decisions of other administrators, including the decision to issue or not issue a block. When administrators disagree they must discuss the matter. If disagreements cannot be resolved informally, a community discussion in an appropriate forum should be started and continue until there is a clear consensus.

2.1) Administrators should not unilaterally reverse the decisions of other administrators when those decisions are published at the conclusion of a community discussion, such as AfD or a notice board discussion, except in the case of obvious error or emergencies. To reverse an administrative action, an appeal is made in the appropriate forum, and a discussion continues until there is a consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Prefer 2.1 here, it's a bit clearer. I believe similar statements on wheel warring have been used in past cases, though, it may be best to take from those. Hersfold 16:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

2 is unworkable--how am I supposed to know someone else has intentionally not issued a block? 2.1 is better, but perhaps overly broad. If we simply restricted administrators from undoing any other administrator's civility blocks, the problem would have been resolved long ago. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Such a proposal has been long needed, and turns on "until there is a clear consensus". While we have not wholly departed from the days when sysops routinely reversed one another, the primary issue today is that people jump the gun at ANI too easily, and reverse a decision before consensus has became clear or more than a handful of editors have had time to comment. AGK 00:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Perhaps this needs to be broken into a few pieces. Jehochman 12:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Decisions to issue a block or otherwise take action should be respected. Decisions not to do anything are not entitled to the same deference, unless announced as a clear judgment on the situation as opposed to an exercise in "I don't see the problem here." In practice that often means that the first administrator to arrive simply does not see the entire picture. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Only if a decision is communicated would it be binding. Jehochman 19:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, but I'd just suggest changing the "must" in the second sentence to "should". That will align it properly with WP:BLOCK#Block reviews. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• "including the decision to issue or not issue a block". Nice in theory, unworkable in practice. A decision to take a positive admin action is a decision to flip a switch - a decision not to is entirely different. An admin action is logged in a central place (block log, deletion log etc). It is impossible (or certainly incompetence) for any admin to undo it without being aware he's undoing it. A decision not to act is not so easily logged. It may be noted on a user talk page, ANI, AN, or various other places (and it may be burried in a long discussion) - it is quite possible to miss it altogether. It may also be less than clear in its wording (unlike a blocking decision which is binary). Further whereas any admin blocking is duty bound to know he's taking a serious decision (weighing all the facts) an admin deciding not to block is not under any such requirement. So someone saying "I won't block for this" may be be taking a serious decision or may be expressing an ill-researched personal opinion (with no personal comeback expected) in passing from the peanut gallery. Further, does that mean that an admin declining a block request is taking a first order decision, and may be desysopped if be issues such a judgement while "involved"? Equating a decision not to block with a decision to block just will not work.--Scott Mac 19:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• No, priority should not rest on first/second mover advantage, but rather on the circumstances/issues. Most blocks are not contentious. A block for 3RR/Vandalism/etc are pretty much up or down. Civility/NPA are more subjective. One person may feel that a civility block is warranted but another might disagree. Civility blocks should only remain if there is a clear consensus that the actions were egregious enough to warrant such a block. If the block is contentious, then imposing such a block while people deliberate at ANI is reprehensible. A user should have the ability to address those who are discussing sanctions. If there is no consensus to block, then the default should be to leave a user unblocked---not dictated by some random "first/second mover" advantage.---Balloonman 21:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• This would be technically possible if developers made it possible to annotate block logs (or a new log was set up for this purpose). Essentially, you would be recording the decisions not to do something, as well as the decisions to do something. Anyone who has studied theories about processes and safety protocols will know that obtaining a fuller picture about a process is not just about recording decisions to do something, but also recording decisions not to do something. The same applies to articles, where decisions to leave something out of an article, or drop a source, are often done silently in the mind of the editor, and not recorded anywhere. This can cause problems when a later editor comes along and adds the material. Recording more details (from administrative decisions to article editing), though, generally founders on cries of bureaucracy. Carcharoth (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think the words "or not issue a block" are appropriate. That is not in the policy, and it is a radical change. And it is all too much wedded to this one case.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• @Carcharoth. Logging is one issue. The other is the sense of gravity by which the decision is taken. If I decide to block, I am expected to be uninvolved, thoughtful, have informed myself, and by fully responsible/accountable for my action. If I decline a block, it could be anything from having carefully reviewed and colluded, to personally deciding I don't want the grief, to knee-jerk without reviewing anything. There's no consequences to me throwing a peanut opinion.--Scott Mac 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• But if the decision not to block had to be recorded in a logged way, people would (hopefully) take that more seriously. What I think the standards should be are: (a) if you are the first admin taking action and there is no obvious discussion, take the action and leave a note in the obvious place explaining your action. (b) If an admin has taken a prior logged action and you disagree, discuss it with them and/or start a discussion. (c) If there is an ongoing discussion either state your opinion or, if you think you are objective enough to judge consensus and take any action needed, state that you are willing to close the discussion and action it both after a minimum amount of time and when consensus has stabilised, and hope that no-one else is rude enough to jump in ahead of you. It is this uncertainty in ANI discussion about when someone will jump in to 'judge consensus' that frequently leads to either premature action or dithering. Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor X complains about editor Y. Administrator Foo comes along and posts a note, "I have reviewed this complaint and find no reason to take action. This matter is closed.". If admin Bar nexts comes along and posts a note, " I disagree and am blocking Y," would that be good practice? What if X had gone to another forum, repeated the same complain, failing to mention the prior thread, and admin Bar came along and decided to block without knowing Foo's decision? I think that in both cases somebody has done something wrong. Jehochman 13:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but you are just asking for people not to contribute to the discussion, block the offender, and then deny knowing there was any discussion until afterwards. And you can't differentiate that from the admin who simply sees the original incivility and decides to block, unaware of the discussion.--Scott Mac 18:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That won't work, will it. Let's say somebody tried to play that game, I would unblock and point to the community discussion, now closed, with an ample consensus for no block, and say that there had been a clear mistake: acting agaist the consensus, ignorant of the consensus. Before blocking an admin needs to look at the user's talk page and see if there are any recent ANI notices or the like, and ascertain all the relevant facts, or else they risk making an ass of themselves. Jehochman 18:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is a clear community consensus on ANI, then there's not going to be a problem in the fist place. But that's not what you are talking about. You are talking about a case where admin A reviews the facts and then declines a block. Admin B sees the facts and (unaware of admin A, or not seeing admin's A's statement as anything but an opinion, or views admin A as heavily involved, or seeing the four admins who have since said "but I would have blocked", or notices that admin A has only commented on bit on incivility one, and perhaps hasn't noticed bit of incivility two, and then blocks). The possibilities are endless. The idea that one admin making a decision no to block can be seen as the equivalent of an admin deciding to block isn't going to fly.)--Scott Mac 19:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wheel warring

2) Administrators must not repeat a disputed administrative action. Neither false claims of changed circumstances nor premature declaration of a new consensus can should be used to justify wheel warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

And here below we have one of the core issues at hand here. I can see problems with both first mover and second mover advantage. With the first mover requiring active consensus to undo, you run the risk of not being able to correct unsound administrator judgements quickly and easily. Second mover we have seen the issue where someone does an action, someone else comes in and undoes it and then it all dissolves into chaos. It is my PERSONAL opinion that we have seen the second mover advantage turn into chaos and gridlock too many times in recent memory. Whether putting in tighter restrictions on undoing administrators actions would alleviate the problem, make it worse, or just present a whole different set of problems entirely is another thing whatsoever, but again in my personal opinion only, I'd rather see administrators play things (with regards to undoing the action taken by another administrator) a LOT less loosey-goosey. If it's a bad decision, take time to establish that it indeed IS a bad decision before undoing. SirFozzie (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom has indeed weakened the definition of wheel warring by turning a blind eye to wheel warring that has been brought or come to our attention on at least two occasions over the past year. Wheel warring without consequences obscures its former status as a "bright line" offense. Mind you, I'm not saying this is necessarily wrong, but it is reality. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The key of the definition is the repeat of a disputed action. There was actually an extreme example of this that occurred only a few months ago on a policy page, but which was not brought to the Committee for action, unfortunately; if it had been, this issue probably would have already been resolved. I also have concerns about administrators imposing additional or stronger sanctions when a dispute appears to have been resolved, without any further discussion. Risker (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@SirFozzie: Nullifying another administrator's decision without discussion and consensus is wrong, but it is not wheel warring. Wheel warring is currently defined as repeating a disputed action. ArbCom cannot change the definition. Jehochman 13:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

We need a bit of elaboration on the standard definition of wheel warring. The second mover advantage should remain. Either we have first or second mover advantage. Second is better because it restores the status quo ante. Jehochman 12:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: Change it from "new concensus can be used" to "new consensus should be used". I can see Can being wikilawyered into a different meaning. Hasteur (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The harm is in undoing actions, not reinforcing them. Why should a "second mover advantage" remain? Status quo and second-guessing attempts to deal with problems is not a preferred outcome. First and second-mover advantages are a matter of gamesmanship by parties seeking a preferred outcome, and that's not supposed to be what administrative action is all about. Rather, administrators are entrusted with discretion to deal with things dispassionately and need some room to exercise that discretion if we're going to keep an orderly editing environment. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The prior principle states that decisions are to be respected. The second mover might be wrong, but they are not wheel warring. The block review process considers that there will be an independent review of blocks and that a user may be unblocked based upon new information, such as an undertaking not to repeat the offense. Jehochman 19:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A careful decision to block made by a neutral uninvolved editor is not an "advantage" for any side, it's a simple carrying out of administrative duties. A decision to unblock after new information or due administrative review is likewise not an advantage to anyone, it's a correct decision made upon reconsideration. But the latter does not seem to be the case here, as there was no new information and no block review, just a brief (<30 minute) series of gripes by the usual suspects who show up to the administrator's noticeboard. Whether that fits a technical definition of wheel warring or not, it's the same in substance, and not an process to favor. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a dangerous and unprecedented change to the long-established Wheel Warning definition, which arbcom has previously stated to be "undoing an administrative action by another administrator without first attempting to resolve the issue" or "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute" see , , , , , etc. While it may be tempting on the back of this particular dispute to make such a change, I would simply draw arbcom's attention to the law of unintended consequences. The current definition was largely worked out in BLP disputes, and granting a "second mover advantage" could have disastrous possibilities in such an area,. We trust admins to make good decisions. We assume the decisions are good until it is established otherwise, through discussion. If some admins make bad decisions, then deal with the bad admins, don't weaken the position of the majority of good decisions. Had MF remained blocked for a few hours, until consensus established the block was improper, no great harm would have been done. Complaints against the blocker could be dealt with by arbcom/RFC later. At any rate, don't weaken the BLP balance as a knee-jerk to this horrible but relatively harmless civility shitstorm.--Scott Mac 20:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but what I wrote seems to summarize the current policy stated here. Jehochman 22:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a question as to whether that statement is indeed current policy. I've always viewed it as wrong, and the arbcom findings bare me out. It is certainly contentious - although perhaps BLP issues simply need to be seen as a special case, where we must err on the side of the admin who is taking preventative action (whether first or second mover) until or unless that admin is shown to be wrong.--Scott Mac 23:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Improper blocks have a demoralizing affect on a user. If a block is improper, it needs to be lifted sooner rather than later. Civility/NPA blocks that are contentious need to be lifted until consensus says the block is proper. This is necessary for several reasons: 1) The presumption of innocent until proven guilty is a standard in the US where Misplaced Pages is located. 2) A person has the right to confront his accusers and to defend him/herself; by allowing a block to stand while the case is being reviewed is improper as it conveys a sense of guilt. 3) Ethically it is wrong to leave a contentious block in place. If the persons behavior is so egregious as needing an immediate block, then consensus will bear that out pretty quickly. If not, then it should be removed.---Balloonman 00:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Civility/NPA blocks that are contentious need to be lifted until consensus says the block is proper" - well not quite. Civility blocks that are widely contentious need lifted - period. However, if admin has blocked, you don't know whether it is contentious until there's been a challenge and some discussion. What we don't want is a cycle of block, unblock, discussion, reblock - that simply promotes drama (as here). If someone is over-the-line uncivil, and gets blocked - we need to swiftly review and either unblock (and deal with the admin if he's out of line) or endorse. The notion that someone who gets a civility block gets unblocked to contest it, isn't going to fly. We don't do that with any other type of short block. That's what unblock templates are for. This is not a jail term that you get bail, then tried, then sentenced.--Scott Mac 00:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that somebody get unblocked to contest it, but if another admin comes along and says, "I think this block isn't warranted" and feels strongly enough to unblock. Then it is a contentious block and needs to be reviewed. The pattern you say you don't want is EXACTLY the "BRD" principle upon which Misplaced Pages is built. It is exactly how it should work. Somebody Boldly blocks, it is reverted, and then discussed. The verdict from the discussion is followed. That is core Misplaced Pages. What we don't want is somebody blocks, gets reverted, incomplete discussion, somebody decides to block again, sombody undoes the reblock, etc... which is what happened here. Note John did not unblock until a consensus was emerging that the block was unjustified. In all honesty, I think Malleus' defenders would have been hard pressed to object to a block after he called a specific user a "fucking cunt" during a civility case. That just shows poor self control/judgment on the part of the person taken to ANI. I defended Malleus against the initial block and was about to undo the reblock (based upon the rationale provided by Hawkeye). But I would have had a hard time opposing a block for that comment. Hawkeye's reblock appeared unjustified and abusive based upon the detailed reasoning he provided.

As for this pattern not existing in other types of blocks... you are right. But that is because vandalism/3RR blocks are less contentious. There is less grey area in what constitutes a 3RR/Vandalism block than there is in a Civility Block.---Balloonman 15:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Above, you (Balloonman) say: "I defended Malleus against the initial block and was about to undo the reblock (based upon the rationale provided by Hawkeye)." Would that have been wheel-warring (and would you do that in the future in a similar situation)? Is there a reason you didn't undo Hawkeye's block? If no administrator was willing to undo the block, even given this supposed "consensus" at ANI to unblock, why is that? Was it maybe because all those administrators who looked into it saw the 'farewell Misplaced Pages' edit made by Malleus and shrugged and thought, "hmm, not worth unblocking after he said that". What if Hawkeye had unblocked - would someone else have reblocked for the Spitfire edit? I keep asking this question and no-one seems prepared to answer. Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In this case, yes I would have undone Hawkeye's reblock because it was so egregiously wrong (based upon his stated rationale) and I would have done so knowing the potential ramifications. Hawkeye's reblock, based upon his rationale, was completely indefensible. And I didn't reach that conclusion hastily or knee jerk---if I was going to engage in "wheel warring" I wanted to make sure that I was on solid footing and that the rationale provided was totally indefensible. I read his statement twice looking for some indication that something new had occured that justified the reblock. His statement did not make any allusion to subsequent behavior only to past behavior. His statement claimed that he reblocked "per consensus" at ANI---so I reread the discussion at ANI twice and failed to see any indication of consensus to reblock. His statement even said (contrary to what he had previously said at ANI) that there was a consensus at ANI that John hadn't acted inappropriately---thus he couldn't hide behind a notion that John's act was improper. Thus, per his statement, there was zero valid justification for the reblock---it appeared abusive and completely unjustified. So yes, I was willing to face the music as I firmly believe that when there is a contentious block, the default should be unblock unless consensus says otherwise. If he had argued, like he did at ANI, that John acted against COI, then I could might accepted it. But instead, he acknowledged that ANI participants were siding with John---so he can't hide behind that cover. Now, if somebody blocked due to the Spitfire comment, I would not have unblocked. That comment, especially during an ongoing civility dispute, clearly crosses the boundary of propreity. I've said it elsewhere, had he cited that example, it would have been hard for "Defenders of Malleus"<tm> to object to a block. But Hawkeye gave no impression that he was aware of said comment, only that he was blocking "per consensus" which clearly did not exist.---Balloonman 17:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC) NOTE: The fact that I am willing to state that I was about to undue Hawkeye's reblock should speak volumes about how poorly thought out and justified I felt that his rationale was. I am not one of those admins who blocks/unblocks on a regular basis or reverses other admin actions. My history as an admin will show relatively few admin actions, so the fact that *I* was going to act speaks valumes.---Balloonman 17:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that there was consensus. Consensus is not measured in twenty minute segments. At least one editor (Protonk) had warned against a unilateral unblock. And the subsequent debate shows that there was, in fact, no consensus. Please stop saying "consensus had formed", consensus forms, if it does at all, after considerable more discussion than that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you are getting your arguments confused. Whether you agree or disagree whether or not consensus had formed, there CLEARLY WAS NOT CONSENSUS to reblock. Hawkeye claimed "Per consensus" and it didn't exist---if anything the opposite would have been true at that point in time.---Balloonman 20:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel that responding to that would oblige me to comment on Malleus's actions, which I am determined not to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's time to think outside the first mover/second mover box -- it just doesn't work. You need a temporally independent protocol. I wrote one for ya'll Misplaced Pages:Block protocol. If you don't like that one, write another one, but stop thinking in terms of ambiguous, impossible to define "first" et. al. Thoughtful is way better than quick. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Risker's concerns about additional sanctions in apparently resolved disputes requiring discussion would make an excellent general point regarding administrator behaviour. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Baiting

2) Editors may not goad or bait another editor to provoke an uncivil response, and then seek a block.

2.1) Editors may not goad or bait another editor to provoke an uncivil response. When reviewing a conflict between editors, administrators should consider the behavior of all parties and apply an appropriate sanction to each party who has behaved poorly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Actually, I'd encourage them to seek a block, such that the party who behaved poorly is sanctioned appropriately and the party who provoked the response through their poor behavior is also sanctioned appropriately. Note that the provoking party's sanction could well exceed that of the party they provoked, depending on the circumstances. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The behavior of all parties will be considered. Jehochman 12:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Accusations of baiting made by disruptive editors and their supporters are entitled to a hearing, but are due a great deal of skepticism and in some cases reproach. Baiting is a deliberate act intended to cause someone to become so angry they disadvantage themselves, and as such is almost by definition an act of bad faith. That accusation should not be made on speculation or as a defensive game, as it seems to be in most cases of excusing long-term problematic behavior. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am still waiting for evidence on the "admins baiting Malleus" issue, with diffs. Can someone please accommodate this? Until there is evidence, this is premature.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm with Wehwalt here. While you might be able to find proof, it will be hard to prove motive. Does Malleus' comments have the affect of baiting admins? Yes. But just because an admin is baited, does not necessarily mean that they were baited. (E.g. Motive of the accused baiter is hard to substantiate.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs)
• Also with Wehwait. If admins bait Malleus, then that is a serious issue. But first we need to see evidence that this is the case --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• I endorse this. Baiting should not be acceptable in any form here. Toa Nidhiki05 22:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens Try 2.1. Not sure if this will come into operation in the present case. Depends how you view the evidence. Jehochman 03:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happens, if the behaviour of all parties will be considered is going to happen, then any consideration has to be done entirely on the true evidence of what actually happened - and not on a pile-on agreement by the uninformed based on a false accusation which may bear some superficial similarity to the truth. A hundred people all telling the same lie - whether deliberately or just piling-on - doesn't make it true. Slapdash and shoddy work in investigation is at least as much a violation of natural principles of justice as unequally-applied enforcement is. I personally came within a hair's-breadth of quitting Misplaced Pages altogether recently because of something like this. Details available on request. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Responding in kind

3) Improper behavior by other editors, such as baiting, does not justify an uncivil response. Such a response may even encourage further baiting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proper behavior is even MORE necessary when dealing with improper behavior. Or as mom would say "If they jumped off a bridge, would you jump as well?" SirFozzie (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Per SirFozzie. Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Worth noting. Jehochman 13:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Re my baiting comment, as I would say in court "assumes facts not in evidence".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, this is the other side of the coin. This is addressing the response a person has when they feel like another person is baiting them. Person A says something. Person B interprets A's actions as baiting. Person B may or may not be correct in their interpretation of A's actions, but even if correct person B is not justified in an uncivil response. This point thus, IMO, goes almost without saying as true.---Balloonman 15:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You still need to show evidence, otherwise this is an irrelevancy.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What evidence? This is common sense. If I feel slighted, that does not justify my acting incivility. If somebody feels attacked/baited, that does not justify their acting in appropriately. Basic decorum dictates that.---Balloonman 17:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning baiting in the final decision is ill-advised unless there is evidence of baiting. Still waiting for diffs.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Per the previous issue, I agree. The previous one does need more evidence. This one stands on it's own. It doesn't matter if somebody actually was baiting another. Even if a person FELT baited, that doesn't justify incivility.---Balloonman 20:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, got an essay for that, too User:Nobody_Ent/Simple_civility_principle. It certainly isn't common sense the way disputes are handled around here -- here's the rational provided by another editor when an admin told an editor to "FUCK OFF" Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• The AN/I thread that preceded this case has a few items that some people may consider to be baiting. I think it's important that we "understand" (but I know policy doesn't excuse) how people can be baited into losing their cool. To be honest, I've seen some folks at WP who take "baiting" to an artform. — Ched :  ?  22:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  There are many master baiters on Misplaced Pages. Jehochman 17:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Administrators and civility

4) Administrators are required to set a good example for other editors by maintaining high standards of civility.

Comment by Arbitrators and responses by others:

Comment by Parties and responses by others:

Comment by Others:

When an administrator makes uncivil comments, the damage is twofold. They harm the person targeted, and they send a message to everybody watching that uncivil remarks are acceptable on Misplaced Pages. This is wrong. Jehochman 03:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Emotion, civility, and blocks

5) Editors may use excessively strident language when they get excited or care deeply about what they are working on. When an editor's emotions lead to incivility, blocking may not be the best practice. Blocks are to be used as a last resort when other means of controlling disruption, such as warnings or counseling, do not work.

Comment by Arbitrators and responses by others:

Comment by Parties and responses by others:

Comment by Others:

This is an amalgamation of common sense, WP:BLOCK, and Newyorkbrad. Jehochman 03:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Selective enforcement

0) Misplaced Pages's civility policy has been subject to selective enforcement. Depending on the personal friendships or antagonisms between editors, some relatively minor civility violations are met with blocks, while other blatant violations are ignored.evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Too true, and unevenness is a large part of the problem. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(a) In what way does that make it different from any other of our policies? (b) That link does not work. I'm not seeing anything on the evidence page that demonstrates friendships and antagonisms are at the root of this. Risker (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Parties:

Comment by Others:

We either need to enforce civility with reasonable uniformity, or else we direct admins not to make capricious blocks. Jehochman 21:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Risker, I have now corrected the link above (which I changed because of the 500-word count limit, which in this case, is preventing lots of editors from making any kind of effective case). Specifically, friendships and antagonisms are apparent in Wehwalt's stance in this case, where he has a history of antagonism with Malleus and of supporting mentee TCO, who engaged in his only-ever edits to an article (what brought him to that article?) in an edit war to support Wehwalt's position (both with faulty reasoning about FAC and FAs, I might add), with uncivil edit summaries, concurrently with personal attacks on two pages-- all posted to several highly watched pages, all ignored in spite of his substantial block log and history of same). The 500-word limit prevents me from making the case more clearly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Unclear Civility Standards

1) The Misplaced Pages community has over the years disagreed about the standards for civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While in this particular case, as Scott Mac notes, I don't think this is really the issue, this is a core problem if we are to look into this situation from a broad scope. It's because that there have been disagreements that we're here in this case, rather than the situation having been dealt with by the community. Hersfold 16:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Think of past cases and requests for arbitration. I won't name them because I don't want to mention uninvolved parties. Jehochman 12:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Hersfold: I think it could come into play if the Committee decides to admonish Malleus instead of banning him. It is not fair to ban somebody when the underlying policy is so "floppy". Jehochman 03:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

True, but actually irrelevant. I don't think anyone much is arguing that calling people "cunt" is civil. The dispute in this particular case is not the "standards for civility", but whether and how they should be enforced.--Scott Mac 18:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Even in that there are shades of grey, though: there's a big difference between using "cunt" as a sexist attack against a specific editor, and as a generalized insult against a vaguely-defined group. The general principle is obvious. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In this whole civility thing, the thing which is most horribly wrong is the inconsistency with which it's applied. That is just wrong, in anybody's book. I personally dislike name-calling and belittling and demeaning of other editors, whether that includes "naughty words" or not - but my dislike of the blatant injustice of not applying standards equally to all exceeds any dislike I have of individual incivilities by orders of magnitude. As a community, we cannot afford to have the equivalent of a "postcode lottery" system for who gets reprimanded for what.

Community-condoned applied injustice is one of the worst barbarities that humankind can inflict on its members. There is almost nothing so open to abuses-of-power then inadequately-defined rules or laws, inconsistently applied. It does not matter to me which individual is the perpetrator, or which individual is the victim - the unjust and inconsistent application of undefined constraints, the current make-your-own definition, pick-your-own victim, move-your-own goalposts approach has to be one of the most astounding displays of pathetic incompetence in community-rule-making and community-rule-enforcement that can exist - it's a total violation of basic, fundamental principles of justice.

My strong suggestion is that the whole civility policy needs a major overhaul. It needs to make it absolutely clear that it's not any individual naughty word which is a problem, it's name-calling in all its forms addressed to an individual. Saying "some admins " wouldn't fit the bill. In any statistically significant sample, some of them will indeed have whatever characteristic was mentioned. That's life. Sorry, guys - but it is. Any admin who doesn't belong in that particular statistical set would have no need to feel offended. "Some people are serial killers." Totally true, and doesn't bother me, personally, at all, because I am not a serial killer.

Calling someone an incompetent moron, a hysterical child, a dimwit, a sanctimonious bitch (etc.) under this basic rule would be just as bad as calling them a wanker, a fucking cunt, or whichever swearword-including epithet one cares to think up. It's the act of name-calling which is unacceptable, not the specific name which was called. If we can revamp the civility policy along these lines things will improve. (The same concept can be applied to probably all aspects of civility; we only have to think constructively to get back to the spirit of the policy rather than nit-picking over the letter of the policy.) But we must have something which cannot be misunderstood, "creatively" or genuinely. And, once we have it, the same rules must apply to absolutely all editors, regardless of their rank or standing in the community

People who have strong principles of honour and integrity and an innate concept of what does and does not constitute "justice" will always get very angry when they see gross violations of justice, amounting to dishonourable behaviour and lack of integrity. We should be valuing people who understand these basic principles, and valuing them highly. And we should be making the best possible use of them - in re-writing our civility policy along lines of sound principle and basic concepts. And, in the meantime, we should have some kind of amnesty for cases like this one, brought about solely because of the problem of undefined or ill-defined policies applied unequally. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum

2) User:Malleus Fatuorum has not yet been the subject of a request for comment on user conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators and responses by others:

This case was accepted without this prior step specifically BECAUSE it was a long-running issue, unusually divisive even amongst administrators. A RfC would accomplish nothing since we're already here. SirFozzie (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Are we to assume Malleus so stupid that he is incapable of taking feedback outside of the RFC/U process? No, Malleus has demonstrated at least above-average intelligence. The lack of a process for process' sake is not the issue here, nor is the lack of feedback directed in Malleus' direction. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Unlike my colleagues, I believe that an RfC would have been very helpful in that it would tend to more clearly delineate what the real issues are with respect to Malleus. RfCs serve a very useful purpose, in that they can narrow areas of concern and assist in the focusing of issues. RFCs can also find the common grounds that do exist within the community on certain users and issues, even if they do not agree in toto. Instead, what we've wound up with here is an academic dissertation on whether or not "cunt" is a word commonly acceptable in all social spheres and circumstances wherever English is spoken or written. Risker (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As the person who filed the case, I feel like I should address this directly as to why I came here instead of going to WP:RFC/U in regards to Malleus's behavior. RFC/Us are non-binding. Anything that would come out of it would be at best a stern warning. Malleus has been told many times before to tone it down. All an RFC/U would do would add another time to that total. Secondly, the issue regarding Malleus's behavior has been extremely divisive among admins, which, as I added on to my filing statement, is a legitimate reason for arbcom to take a case without all the prior steps (including an RFC/U) being followed. I agree with the letter of the proposal as it is indeed true, but I don't agree with the spirit of it as an RFC/U would only delay the inevitable. Alexandria (chew out) 14:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman, allow me to ask you a simple question: What would an RFC accomplish? Alexandria (chew out) 17:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is the logical next step if there are concerns that need to be addressed. Jehochman 12:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration was needed in this case due to the admin sillyness, but lacking an RFC, I think it is an error to sanction Malleus, such as banning him for a year. He still deserves the same courtesy and respect as any editor. Jehochman 16:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Moot issue at this point. Arbcom has decided to take the case. Anybody who objects to the procedure here could suggest a motion to close, but barring that Arbcom has the full measure of remedies at its disposal, whether or not it chooses to exercise them. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a fact that is not in dispute: there has been no RFC. ArbCom has taken the case, but banning Malleus now would be a poor decision. It is highly relevant that despite the assertions that Malleus is a problem user, nobody ever bothered with an RFC. Sometimes actions speak louder than words. The lack of an RFC is telling. It signifies a higher probability of feuding and vengeance seeking, and a lower probability of good faith attempts at dispute resolution by Malleus' detractors. Jehochman 17:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe this point needs to be included in any final decision. However, as it currently stands, this statement is incomplete: it needs to include a finding why one was never opened. (IMHO, none was out of justifiable concern that any RfC about MF's behavior would decend into WikiDrama & fail to address the problem.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

How would this work if applied in general: skip dispute resolution if you think it would be futile? Jehochman 18:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If it were a case that "you" could skip it when "you think" it would be futile, them that would be unworkable. However, if there's a general feeling (and arbcom agrees) that earlier steps are unlikely to help, then we don't need to fulfil futile steps to satisfy TEH RULZ. Misplaced Pages isn't a bureaucracy and all that. Besides, what is bad in general may be good in particular. Misplaced Pages has always gone with the pragmatic.--Scott Mac 18:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If the accusations against Malleus are true, I think an RFC should have been started a long time ago. Perhaps that would have resolved the problem before it got to this stage. There are counter accusations that Malleus has been hounded and baited. Should the alleged persecutors be rewarded for dodging dispute resolution? Jehochman 22:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone gets rewarded at Arbitration - precisely because it examines all parties. If there are indeed persecutors, they ought to beware the boomerang.--Scott Mac 23:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of cases where people won't file RfCs because they feel nothing good will come of it. One instance, to name names, is Betacommand, but I could name a variety of people dating back at least 5 years. I tried to talk one of MF's victims to agreeing to opening a RfC a year ago -- it takes two people to certify an RfC & get it started -- but his opinion was not to bother, it was a waste of time to do that; MF's day of judgment would eventually come, just like some other colorful characters. (FWIW, Jehochman, your name wasn't on his list.) I wish that opening an RfC was a productive tool to handle these kinds of incidents, but many Wikipedians have no faith that it works; some don't even think the ArbCom works effectively. There are even Admins who have no faith in the process. -- llywrch (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman is right in that no RfC was attempted, and it should have been. I've stated elsewhere (at the tail-end of the request when it was clear that a case would be accepted) that I would have been willing to start or draft an RfC. It would largely have consisted of two sections: examples of Malleus's incivility (with space to add the necessary context) and examples of Malleus helping others and producing excellent content. The time period would have been something like one or two years up to the time of filing the RfC. And then it would have asked the community to give comments and suggestions as to what needed to change, if anything. I would have drafted it in userspace, and then asked all those mentioned to comment first and help make changes, and only then would it have gone live for wider comment. It would have taken time, but might have helped. My question here is whether such an RfC would help after the case closes or not? The point being that it gives the community a chance to comment in a more structured fashion than scattered ANI threads, and in a less restrictive fashion than in an arbitration case. Also, I don't think the concept of ArbCom-directed RfCs should be dismissed out of hand. A properly drafted RfC could do a lot of good here. A poorly drafted RfC will lead to drama. The same applies to arbitration cases, funnily enough. Carcharoth (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U is the approved DR approach but is absolutely not mandatory and Arbitration case acceptance terms are very clear - it "deals with the most serious, entrenched, or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking, where all other reasonable means have failed." A clearer case could not be found. RFC/U would not be "reasonable" now due to the nature of the case and would do nothing more than kick the problem into the long grass for a few months. Leaky Caldron 13:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

And it seems to me that part of ArbCom's rationale for accepting this case was, correctly, that the demonstrated inability of the community to even initiate a productive RfC/U process was, itself, evidence of the kind of intractable problem that requires ArbCom to step in. It's worth noting that this case is very different from one in which a problem with user conduct only recently came into focus. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. Why wasn't it possible to start an RFC/U? Who was obstructing the process? If so, let's have the evidence and make sure that doesn't happen again. My reading is that Malleus' detractors couldn't be arsed to compile the evidence. Instead, there was on-wiki and potentially off-wiki lobbying for administrators to block Malleus. That's wrong. Our purpose here is to help other editors, not to play the "get the other guy blocked" game. Jehochman 14:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm certain that "the futility of it" plays a part in not going to RFC/U and that applies across the board - not just in the case of MF. If there has been off-wiki collusion against MF that would be a disgrace - can anyone show evidence? Same goes for so called baiting and / or lobbying. I believe MF has brought most of the problems on himself but editors/admins. actively working against him is beyond acceptable behaviour. Leaky Caldron 14:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have seen lots of off wiki collusion, in general. It is an endemic problem. Jehochman 17:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you say where you've seen this? And exactly the kind of thing which was the subject of this off-wiki collusion? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The lack of a prior RFC is a contributing factor for why we are here. It needs to be noted that Malleus' detractors did not bother to use an obvious dispute resolution option that was available to them. Jehochman 21:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Noted - The uniqueness of this case almost requires a unique resolution. It is fitting that it should be this way. Consider this: if an editor feels their own importance as sufficient to construe another editor thanking them as an insult, and further chastises that editor for some lack of pomp and circumstance; couldn't the same editor feel indignant by suggesting a subordinate body was even qualified to hear his testimony? What I have seen transpire suggest it is possible. My76Strat (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

@Alexandria: It would put all the evidence in one place and give the community a chance to review and comment. Once that was done, assuming it deadlocked because of the faction supporting Malleus, it would have been easy enough to move to arbitration if there were further problems. It would have avoided some admins getting desysopped for wheel warring. It would have contained the drama to a designated page, instead of spilling hither and thither. Jehochman 17:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only do I agree that the lack of an RFC shows the extent to which Malleus is targeted, but I also believe that by accepting this case without insisting on an RFC, a bad precedent was set by ArbCom, and any opportunity to resolve the problems via RFC was short-circuited. The take-home message is, hound a user long enough, then take him to the arbs to get him blocked or banned. The 500-word limit on evidence is another problem, making it very difficult to fully explore issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Caution on Civility Blocks

1) Administrators are directed not to block for mere incivility. Such blocks are often contentious, may have a chilling effect on free expression, may appear subjective, abusive or biased, and thus should not be performed. If incivility rises to the level of harassment, severe personal attacks, outing or disruptive editing, then blocks may be used.

1.1) ) Administrators are cautioned not to block for moderate incivility. Such blocks are often contentious, may have a chilling effect on free expression, may appear subjective, abusive or vengeful, and thus do more harm than good. If incivility rises to the level of harassment, severe personal attacks, outing or disruptive editing, then blocks should be considered.

1.2) ) Administrators are cautioned not to block for incivility that is merely uncouth. Such blocks are contentious, may have a chilling effect on free expression, may appear subjective, abusive or vengeful, and thus do more harm than good. On the other hand, when incivility is used to harass, shock or intimidate another editor, blocking may be necessary.

Comment by Arbitrators and replies by others:

No. Incivility and personal attacks are against one of the pillars of Misplaced Pages and are inherently disruptive. SirFozzie (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SirFozzie, this isn't correct. The language used should mirror that found in Misplaced Pages:Civility#Blocking for incivility, which is somewhat different. PhilKnight (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Aye, this isn't terribly useful. Moderate incivility, if spread over a long period of time, can have just as much or more of a chilling effect than a short block. Even in short bursts, it can be disruptive and impede collaborative discussion. Hersfold 16:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-starter. If anything, I would prefer to see us restrict civility unblocks, and encourage administrators to levy initial blocks more freely. Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Contentious blocks are never good. Jehochman 12:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's absolutely unwise, and beyond the power of Arbcom, to do away with a foundational principle of Misplaced Pages by declaring it unenforceable. Bad behavior that is sufficiently extreme and vexatious may warrant a summary block. This is routine practice, certainly in noncontentious cases. The advocacy of a minority against a core policy does not make enforcement of the policy contentious. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• If the bad behavior is sufficiently extreme it will qualify as harassment, personal attacks, outing, disruptive editing, or equivalent. Mere name calling, such as me saying that you are a poopy-head, is not justification for a block. Some administrators like to lord their powers over other editors. Often civility is used as a pretense to dish out a vengeful block. That nonsense has to stop. It has been tolerated for way too long. Jehochman 17:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think this is wise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

While this may perhaps be a good idea, it is a change to policy that goes beyond the remit of arbcom. This needs an RFC with demonstrable consensus support (i.e. not going to happen).--Scott Mac 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If ArbCom knows that certain actions will lead to trouble, they can advise that an administrator who performs such action and causes such trouble will be held responsible for poor judgment. How about 1.1, a softer version. Jehochman 18:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Is "cunt" moderate incivility? YMMV. I certainly think saying "If incivility rises to the level or harassment, severe personal attacks, outing or disruptive editing, then blocks should be considered." is mealy-mouthed. Editors engaging in such activities ought to be blocked immediately. (And I don't think we'd disagree on that).--Scott Mac 20:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there can be an argument made the "cunt" could be sexual discrimination or harassment depending on who it is directed at and in what circumstances. We have to write principles are generally applicable, then we apply the specifics of the case. As for mealy-mouthed, we don't want to say "you must block" because that takes away discretion. Can you think of a stronger formulation that is not absolute? Jehochman 22:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm, "cunt" is certainly vulgar (or should that be vulva), but reviewing the original utterance, I'm not sure it is technically uncivil, so much as gratuitous and incredibly unbecoming. It is certainty not a word I ever want to see typed on wikipedia - unless directly related to content. However, I am not aware of it being sexist. When I occasionally hear it colloquially (and by colloquia I don't mean in polite company - it is, here in Scotland, never a polite word) it is generally used to refer to males rather than females. As for wording, I would suggest "... then blocks are normally appropriate" (that doesn't compel the individual admin to actually do it).--Scott Mac 23:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the US that word directed at a female co-worker in an office would probably be grounds for termination. A bunch of male truck drivers on the loading dock could use this language at each other and nobody would care. Females on the loading dock, I am not sure. It depends whether the speaker is using the word to shock and intimidate the target. There is a big difference between being uncouth and violent. The context is very important. We cannot just make a list of naughty words. We also need to understand whether Misplaced Pages is a loading dock or a professional office. Jehochman 23:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe that anyone is pontificating about this - in the UK, USA or Australia. Cunt is fine down the pub with your mates, about each other or about another person (usually absent). It is never acceptable in writing to or about a stranger - EVER. On Misplaced Pages we are strangers, despite attempts by some to create an artificial veneer of reality in their "relationships" here. Leaky Caldron 23:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Cunt is not solely directed at persons. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think "cunt" like "motherfucker" is in a class of words which may be acceptable within certain informal subculture groups, where there is implied consent to be addressed as such. However, even people within those groups will generally know to drop the language when interacting within the wider culture. They don't walk into a shop in another neighbourhood and address the shopkeeper. So, the word should not be used. The problem is that the same argument can be applied to the word "fuck" - regularly used in many groups - but almost all would drop it in a professional situation, or when discoursing with strangers, unless they were very clear that it would be acceptable, or they were demonstrating their power by indifference to what people thought of them. Actually, although I've mocked the idea of a "swear list", the idea that we ought to have a guideline against using unnecessary vulgar words, particularly where we are aware that they may alienate, offend, or off-put is not that crazy. An exhaustive list would be impossible, but a guideline with examples???--Scott Mac 23:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The Macquarie, a dictionary of Australian usage, disagrees with your universal characterisation. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

@Scott. The proposal has merit but also problems. Let me demonstrate. "You are a c@nt", "He is a cnt", "They are cunts". Which do you list? Some goes for "c*nt" or any other character substitution or missing a vowel in fucking, twat, or whatever. Leaky Caldron 23:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that was my problem with a "list of prohibited terms" - it is impossible to make it exhaustive, and is unlikely to stop me calling you a bawbag or some other Scots obscenity that the list hasn't yet covered. Civility can't be reduced to a list of swear words - because I can also insult you with the Queen's English too. However, a guideline saying "as part of maintaining decorum and civility, please don't use words likely to be seen as vulgar by many editor. Some common examples might be ." The point is to recommend a principle, not enforce a tightly drawn rule, and accepting that this is not anything like the sum total of civility.--Scott Mac 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Treat incivility like marijuana; a minor transgression, usually not worth the time or effort to pursue as the time and effort invariably outweigh the severity of the original act. It'll free up admins from getting bogged down in dumb caterwauling every few months. Tarc (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Or it will result in everyone being high - and an increase in a toxic user environment which drives away ladies and more delicate users, until we all sit and swear at our fellow motherfudders. The problem with drug-enforcement allusions, is that there's no consensus in society as to whether abolishing enforcement is the way to utopia or hell.--Scott Mac 00:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been an admin for four years, and can attest that blocks for incivility are in no way "often contentious". These are probably the least controversial types of blocks. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

While it would be a dauntingly unproductive task to seek developing perfectly clear prose that unambiguously govern any and all possible occurrences of incivility, it is irrefutably easy to acknowledge that when a good faith user directly expresses that they were offended, a problem likely exists. In such context, you can not convince me that telling them to fuck off, or grow up would ever be a collaborative, civil response. And I am not available to purchase the Brooklyn bridge either. My76Strat (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking of past cases related to civility. Some of our most contentious disputes have had a heavy barrage of civility claims flung back and forth. It seems like these cries of incivility only complicate disputes. If somebody is habitually incivil, then start an RFC. Otherwise, don't complain about isolated incidents that may occur when an editor gets overwrought. Jehochman 14:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. It is precisely this well intentioned but ultimately counterproductive viewpoint that has led Misplaced Pages into the civility morass it finds itself in. Whenever incivility occurs, there needs to be community pushback, proportionate to the situation. It can be as simple as a hey that's uncool, tone it down, a request to strike, use of {{nono}} template, something. Silence is consent. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Silence is not consent. It may work toward some advantage to construe it as consent, but it is not consent. Silence is Silence. It has no meaning until we give it meaning. Buster Seven Talk 08:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

To some degree silence is consent. You Buster7 were not silent as you did speak out when you called for common courtesy. Thumperward on the other hand endorsed the edit, by editing after MF and even after Deb, giving no indication that he saw MF's edit as a blockable offense, even himself seeming to undermine Deb's appeal by commenting to her "You must be new here." I am working on evidence and will provide links and diffs. My76Strat (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I back up My76Strat on this one entirely. Silence most definitely is consent - those who see such abuse and do nothing about it or don't speak up against it, are just as guilty as those who commit the abuse in the first place. If nobody speaks up, it'll go on and on ad infinitum until something gives.  BarkingFish  15:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand that incivility is often a form of baiting? The rude editor is looking for a fight. Why give them what they want? If you refuse to take the bait, they will eventually get bored, and go do something else. Sometimes a good tactic is to leave a deadpan reply that appears to be completely untouched by the insult. Jehochman 18:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Editors My76 And Barking Fish---There may be a hidden natural self-interest for silence. Back in grade school, did you respond when the bullies were "initiating" the new kid to the rules of the schoolyard? Silence is not indifference or support or consent. It's silence. Let's assume that MF is completely silent as to the conclusion of this case. Will his silence mean that he consents to its decision?

There may be simple reasons to explain silence:

1. ..Repeated edit conflicts to the point of creating a long delay or just too much effort required.
2. ..Internet connection problems.
3. ..Fear, plain and simple. Not wanting to become the target.
4. ..Disinterest. Not willing to spend the time to respond to foolishness.
5. ..No time, late for work!--Buster Seven Talk 19:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Hersfold: Very true, but if there is mild incivility spread over a long time, start an RFC. Blocking may only escalate the problem, rather than resolve it. "You seem a bit upset. Let me provoke you and see if that helps you calm down." Blocks are provocative, and should only be used as a last resort. Jehochman 21:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Habitual Incivility

2) Editors who habitually violate the civility policy should be the subject of a requests for comment on user conduct. Should that process fail to resolve concerns, a community discussion should be started to determine whether a ban or editing restriction is needed to prevent further incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators (and replies by others):

Do we start RFC/U's on vandals? On sockmasters? Why, specifically, should civility be singled out? Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

User:Wikidemon states below that administrators are entitled to deference. Can he or someone else explain to me why that is so? Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Instead of placing "cowboy" blocks for incivility, administrators need to seek a consensus. Have the discussion before blocking, rather than after. If a block is needed, make sure it will stick. Jehochman 12:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• No, we trust administrators to maintain a productive editing environment across the board. Discretionary use of administrator tools to enforce accepted policies is not "cowboy" behavior. Incivility is not a special class of misbehavior or disruption in this regard. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I see. Are you suggesting that the least tolerant administrator is the one who should set community standards on an issue as nebulous as civility? I think not. When the conduct is in a gray area, there should be discussion, rather than administrator versus administrator warfare. Jehochman 17:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• All administrators have discretion to enforce policy and are entitled to deference. The least tolerant is only one of 1,500. It's counterproductive to tie all of their hands on the chance that the worst among them will show up. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• No janitor on this site is entitled to any more "humble submission and respect" than any other editor. That sort of thinking is a cornerstone in the quarrels between Malleus and various admins—an idea that gives some the impression that we editors are mere proletariat among the exhaulted admins with all their noble powers and wisdom. Lara 22:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

While this may perhaps be a good idea, it is a change to policy that goes beyond the remit of arbcom. This needs an RFC with demonstrable consensus support (i.e. not going to happen).--Scott Mac 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is restating the standard process, no? ArbCom can remind people how things are supposed to work. Jehochman 14:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

While not wishing to offend, I would say that having tried to raise a Wikiquette Alert against Malleus in the past, and being mauled badly for doing so, I find it difficult to believe that the people who have problems with him would actually have the courage to raise an RFC/U against him, because (like I), they know what would happen. It would get shot down like everything else people do when it comes to Malleus. Bypassing RFC/U to get here is like climbing over a pit of alligators to get to the bad guy. It's something that needed to be done in order to get the real issue resolved. Would you stick your hand into a pit of vipers knowing full well you were gonna get bitten to death? I doubt it.  BarkingFish  18:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC) (returned to sign - original comment left at 17:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC) )

Agree w/proposal and Editor Barking Fish. Buster Seven Talk 19:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Good start, possibly incomplete. Where would the community discussion following a failed RFC/U take place? Nobody Ent 20:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI or WP:AN would be the customary venues. The RFC is crucial for developing the evidence and allowing a full discussion. ANI is not a good venue for presenting lots of evidence and having a lengthy, thoughtful discussion. However, once there is an RFC page, it can be linked from ANI, and there can be a relatively rapid discussion about what sanction might be needed. If ANI were to deadlock, the matter could be sent up to arbitration. Hopefully that would be a rarity. Jehochman 21:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's seems like there's a lot of churn on the AN boards about other issues; additionally the conversation would end being split between the RFC and the board. We should just consider implementing an RFC variant where non voluntary sanctions are on the table. Nobody Ent 23:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@JClemens: we single out civility because we mostly agree on what vandalism and socking is; we're all over the map on civility. Nobody Ent 02:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens: Because there is no common understanding of what is uncivil. Socking and vandalism are pretty clear cut. Nobody much disputes blocks given for those reasons. Jehochman 03:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

@JClemens... what the above two comments said. Civility is a different beast because it is a gray area. Vandalism/3RR is pretty straight forward. Civility isn't. Not only is civility subjective among the viewers, but among the participants. The same discussion between two people can have a different tone depending on their history---which simply muddies the issue.---Balloonman 21:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum admonished

2) Malleus Fatuorum is admonished for incivility.

2.1) Malleus Fatuorum is admonished to improve the civility of his comments.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Admonished, definitely. Told to cut it out, yes. I would go so far as to say that he should be told that he has two options. Cut out the incivility and remain on Misplaced Pages, or continue to be uncivil and find somewhere else to be. SirFozzie (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Per SirFozzie, but Malleus' comment below bears consideration, and should probably be submitted as a separate proposal. Administrators must be held to at least the same standards as non-admins, if not higher. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Balloonman appears to be claiming below that I've been "emboldened" by the limp-wristed admonishment dished out at venues like AN/I, but that's very far from the truth. I have a very strong sense of fairness, which is all that emboldens me to challenge those who should know better to behave better. Those charged with enforcing (an admittedly poorly written) civility policy need to understand that their own behaviour must be beyond reproach, but too many of them do not, and are far more long-term uncivil than their victims. The change that needs to be made here is a clear and unambiguous statement by ArbCom that the civility policy applies equally to everyone, from the highest to the lowest, and show some courage in actually enforcing that ideal. If blocks are to be made for incivility then there are several commenting in this case who ought already to be blocked. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jehochman: not entirely, as that puts the blame on me. I would agree to abide by any properly written and consistently enforced civility policy, but right now we have neither. Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Again, not entirely, as I see nothing wrong with using occasional intensifiers to drive home a point. In this specific case though the only thing I regret is having called User:Spitfire a "fucking cunt" in response to a comment he made in the aftermath of my indefinite block. That was clearly wrong of me, no matter what he had said. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And Buster Seven's comment that we're trying to "create a new culture" just puzzles me. I thought we were trying to write a freely available encyclopedia? Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

You can't call another editor "cunt" and expect to get away with it, no matter what the circumstances. Nevertheless, ArbCom need not place further sanctions at this time. There should be an RFC and we should see how Malleus responds. It is not proper to assume that he won't agree to refrain from further incivility, which would be the best possible result. Jehochman 12:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• MF has already been admonished plenty of times. It doesn't hurt to do so again but without more how does this remedy do any good? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Has be been admonished by ArbCom? Links? The admonishment means that next time ArbCom sees evidence that he ignored their warning, they can drop the banhammer. Jehochman 17:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

By definition, an admonishment is intentionally mild. A mild sanction should be off the table for matters of magnitude equivalent this case. At minimum, MF should be chastised, while being required to acknowledge the aspects of his conduct deemed unacceptable and describe what changes he intends to make regarding his manner of collaboration. My76Strat (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position on anything regarding Malleus. However, all I see from this series of proposed remedies is the status quo, reinforced now by an ArbCom decision. Is this what you want?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Talking to or about another editor, in a manner that is (or can reasonably be expected to be) hostile and demeaning, is inappropriate and should not be accepted. I don't really care if one uses vulgar expletives or simply calls someone else an idiot — it's still a personal attack and doesn't belong here. In my opinion, this ought to be seen as a "bright line" issue, at least as much so as people consider wheel-warring to be. — Richwales (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus has not been admonished. Whenever an isolated case is brought before ANI, the case is poorly formulated and isolated. Sorry, but most of the incidents I've seen have failed to pass the test. Do I think there is a case to be made again MF? Definitely; but it hasn't been made. ANI has not admonished him, in fact it has emboldened him because he emerges unscathed. He's actually warned admins that if they act against him, that they would be sorry for doing so because he knows it won't stick. An RfC was needed long ago, but his detractors never bothered to formulate one.---Balloonman 16:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Feeling intimidated, or being in fear of being intimidated, tends to have a chilling effect on people's enthusiasm to jump through hoops for no benefit. Leaky Caldron 16:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed... but my comment was directed to those who feel like Malleus has been admonished. He hasn't. If anything he's been emboldened to misbehave because he knows that ANI has failed to do anything.---Balloonman 17:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Some thought ought to go into how something like this might be (or fail to be) enforced. A simple statement of admonishment will likely be ignored. The alternative would seem to be to ask administrators at AE to issue civility blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If evidence warrants, an editor could be subject to a civility restriction, perhaps with a requirement that a warning be given, and then escalating blocks for each incident. The advantage of AE is that the block appeal process is rigorous. We won't have this block, unblock, endless discussion at ANI nonsense. Jehochman 14:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I support this, but not as the only action against Malleus - it should be part of the solution, not the whole of it. Toa Nidhiki05 22:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

We, acting as a community, should not tolerate provacatuers. In spite of all his claims to fame, Malleus' provokes. There is no viable logical defense for boorish behavior anywhere on Misplaced Pages. We are creating a new culture not implementing and continuing the nonsense of ancient ones that exist under a tent of so-called "cultural and tempermental differences". Buster Seven Talk 08:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not support this. An admonishment (read: yet another slap on the wrist) is going to do nothing. He's openly ignored administrators, and other users, and basically knows he can get away with pretty much anything. It's going to be like "Oh whoops, i've been rude, oh well, nothing bad's gonna happen again, as usual..." - and that's the kind of thing which needs clearly and concisely discouraging on here. Any other user acting in the way MF has in the past would have been out on their ear a damn long time ago, and as far as I can see, ARBCOM need to be looking at more than just "admonishing" this user. Enough is enough.  BarkingFish  17:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you please stop assuming bad faith of one of our best content writers. Malleus has never been admonished before by ArbCom. You don't know how he would react. Hopefully things will improve and no further dispute resolution will be needed. Jehochman 22:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate you stop assuming I'm assuming bad faith. I know Malleus has his good points on WP, and those - like his content writing, are not in question here. What is in question is MF's past conduct and that leads me to believe that this will likely get ignored. If it tones him down, excellent. If it leads to no more issues, bloody wonderful. Will it? Well, it's a wait and see now.  BarkingFish  22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

@Malleus Fatuorum: Good response. Do you agree that you need to tone down your remarks somewhat, to set a good example for others? If your comments were not excessively strident, it would be easier to focus attention on the conduct of those who you have been criticizing. Jehochman 21:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum: I agree that the standards are unclear and need to be reworked. Let me rephrase my question. Do you agree that it would be better practice to write your comments so that the substance of your comments would be the focus of attention, rather than your word choice? Less strident comments are usually more effective at informing or convincing. It is certainly not my intention to blame you or anybody else. We need a common understanding so that people can work together to write great articles. Jehochman 21:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@Malleus Fatuorum: We are writing a freely available encyclopedia. And, in the process, the WikiPedia community, along with the general public, are creating a new culture. Perhaps I should say culture in a new format. A format that has never existed, in this form, in the history of mankind. So why should we clutter it with defending cultural differences from the past that seperate us and cause us to bite one another. All this talk of the past dozen days is shaping the culture that we will live and work in until we reshape it into something else when the next "gathering" happens. That's how I see it. If you don't agree, that's alright with me.Buster Seven Talk 03:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Desysopped

2) (placeholder)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Need to see all the evidence before writing this one. Whichever administrators wheel warred or baited, if any, need to be desysopped. Jehochman 12:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Hipocrite

Proposed findings of fact

Hawkeye7 previously admonished

1) Hawkeye7 was previously admonished for "blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

For convenience could you include a link to the admonishment so that people can see the specifics? Jehochman 16:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Hawkeye7_admonished. Hipocrite (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 wheel-warred

2) By re-doing a previously reversed action, Hawkeye7 wheel-warred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

One can quibble about length, but there was block, unblock, re-block. That to me, counts as wheel-warring. SirFozzie (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

There was no reversal of the earlier unblock. This was a block for what he did after being unblocked. Does an unblock mean that you can never be blocked ever again? If it was for the same thing, I could understand an editor continuing on good faith that what they did was okay, but this was not the case here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Depends. What was the previous action? Was it simply an unblock or an unblock of indefblock? The admin certainly re-blocked, but he did not re-instate the indef block. Thus, he did not simply reverse the unblock. Does that matter? Not sure.--Scott Mac 18:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Hawkeye7 to demonstrate that he was aware of Malleus's last comment. I think that is key. It may not be possible to demonstrate it, however.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Endorse. Hawkeye7 claimed consensus at ANI for a re-block, but there was clearly no such consensus. --Elonka 03:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We need to hear Hawkeye7's explanation before jumping to conclusions. Jehochman 16:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Per the rationale provided in his original statement, that the action to reblock was due to "consensus" and not a subsequent action, I have to support. Hawkeye provided a detailed rationale for his reblock, but omitted the one piece that would have given his action a leg to stand on. Even if he had cited the spitfire comment, reblocking during an ANI debate where conensus was clearly not for a block makes his actions appear to be wheel warring---and to address wehwalt's concern. It doesn't matter if it had only been 20 minutes or an 2 hours, hawkeye claims to have acted on a consensus that did not exist. His rationale makes the lack thereof pertinent.---Balloonman 03:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 is incivil

3) is incivil, regardless if "stewed" means angry or drunk, regardless if a koala is used to depict an animal that is angry or drunk.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This was in the context of requesting admin assistance, something that any editor may do. It was not an admin function. When I was asked to retract it, I immediately did so. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my view of this, this is only noteworthy due to it's connection with use of tools. As a stand alone comment it's not something to lose sleep over. However coming from a blocking admin toward the blockee it's deeply troubling.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I find calling someone a koala to be more surreal than uncivil.--Scott Mac 18:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the typical meaning for "stewed" is drunk rather than angry, and I suggest anyone who knows anything about koalas knows that (a) they are much more drunk-like than angry and (b) if they are uncomfortable / displeased with someone touching / holding them they tend to express this by urinating over the person. Whilst I do believe that MF would be considered uncivil if he urinated on another editor, surely the key point here is that this taunting (as I see it) post from Hawkeye7 is another example of the exceptionally poor judgement he exercised here, and is part of the reason he should be de-sysoped. EdChem (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

At face value, I accept your assertion that "stewed" is more typically associated with drunkenness. I also agree that even the less orthodox usage to imply aggravation would be itself an inappropriate taunt. I disagree that using a Koala for metaphoric contrast means either angry, or drunk. I perceived the metaphor as implying the status of a protected species, also inappropriate. I'd like to see Hawkeye stand for reconfirmation. This because it is obvious that community confidence has waned. I do not believe there is evidence to warrant a de-sysoping. My76Strat (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

From experience, reconfirmaton after contentious actions, and desysopping lead to the same thing. he only diference is that desysopping cuts out the compulsory submission to a lynch mob. (Arbcomn forced someone to reconfirmation RFA once, and it was horrible). No one should be forced into that. If the tools are in question, arbcom ought only to consider desysopping. If the subjects wants to submit to an RFA that's his choice.--Scott Mac 10:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also note that the usual concern is more with sustained incivility, rather than a single instance of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the usual concern is more with sustained incivility... but this is a special case wherein an admin makes a dubious block and then appears to gloat about it. It raises concerns about Hawkeye's objectivity and mindset at the time. Had he made the comment elsewhere at a different time it would have fallen on deaf ears. But because he had just acted against Malleus, it looks really bad. Admins, especially when acting on a case, need to appear to be objective and detatched. This comment makes that assumption dubious.---Balloonman 03:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Endorse. Hawkeye7's language was inappropriate. Doubly so from an administrator. Triply so for being about someone they'd just blocked. --Elonka 03:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 unable to judge consensus

4)Hawkeye7's block rationale included the statement "Per consensus on WP:ANI." At the time he wrote this, the ANI thread did not evidence consensus to reblock - if anything, it evidenced consensus against a block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• I think there needs to be another proposal between (4) and (5) here: "That Hawkeye7 re-blocked Malleus while involved." --Mkativerata (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Was quite puzzled by this consensus claim, as it did not appear to exist in that ANI discussion. Tarc (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• I read the discussion twice looking for a way that it could have been justified per consensus... not there at time of reblock.---Balloonman 19:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Consensus is not a vote. It's the strength of arguments that matters. AQFK (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And can you see a strength of argument argument that overcomes the numerical advantage here? Or the strength of argument opposing the block? In order to argue strength of argument, there has to be a counter argument, but there wasn't.---Balloonman 03:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Who decides the strength of the arguments? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 10:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• For most observers, and certainly for anyone involved, the strength of the argument is usually the extent to which it supports the observer's position. By another measure, the strongest argument is the one that prevails, in other words outcome proves consensus. Whatever consensus is, it has little to do with the ridiculous posturing and whining of people who show up to AN/I block and unblock discussions to re-argue old debates. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. I read through the thread, and there was no consensus for a re-block. It's not even a close call. --Elonka 03:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 abuses administrative authority

5)Hawkeye7's block rationale included the statement "I am exercising my special treatment rights to add a condition that lifting this block may only be done by an admin with more featured articles than myself." This is not a valid use of administrative power.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There is no such right. SirFozzie (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation of this is closer to Nick-D's and Wehwalt's, that is it wasn't intended to be taken literally. PhilKnight (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

While that may be the case, it's still an inappropriate comment to make when explaining the rationale for the block (what is supposed to be a rather serious matter). Hersfold 16:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that it is not a situation that a light-hearted comment is helpful in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I regret this. PhilKnight is completely correct. So is Carcharoth and Wikidemon. I concur with their comments. I was not explaining the rationale for the block, but leaving a note for someone reviewing the block. It was not intended literally. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just FYI, according to Hawkeye7's user page he has 15 FA credits, so if it were possible to impose a condition like this, it would disempower a large fraction of the admin community. EdChem (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This comment was made by Hawkeye in response to the repeated claims in the ANI thread that Malleus shouldn't be blocked as he's written lots of FAs (which, of course, has no basis in any kind of policy and seems to imply that the rules don't apply to FA writers) - you've excluded the "There seems to be a vague consensus that being a valuable content contributor entitles special treatment. " at the start of this part of Hawkeye's post. While including this was unwise, I doubt that Hawkeye meant that this should be taken seriously. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That probably leaves me and a handful of others, and I would recuse myself as an admin! Seriously though I think Hawkeye's comment is sarcasm and not intended literally.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Hawkeye's comment wasn't meant to be taken literally (someone should ask him, though). What I took Hawkeye to be referring to was the way in which some editors (or others on their behalf) flaunt their level and quality of article contribution credentials and that this was to some extent discussed in the ANI thread. There is also a meme (among those non-admins who persistently criticise admins as a whole) where most admins are disparaged as not really producing content. Clearly (with Hawkeye's level and quality of contributions) that wouldn't have been possible here. The other side of the coin is non-admins engaging in persistent incivility holding admins to a high standard of civility. It can be incredibly frustrating for admins to try and engage in discussion with someone who is habitually incivil, while being aware of the need to be civil and not respond in the same manner. Hence (in my view) the 'protected species' comment. Carcharoth (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Concur. I regret alluding to my contributions above, even jokingly.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like he was joking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• If this statement was meant seriously it was a gross violation of administrator standards which was a substantial over-reach of his authority. If it was a pointy joke, it is simply more evidence of very poor judgement from Hawkeye7. I suspect it was the latter, but no matter which interpretation you favour it provides evidence of Hawkeye7's mishandling of this situation and unsuitability to retain the sysop tools at this time. EdChem (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously not meant seriously. Although it's a lame joke (too geeky), it exhibits a very common aspect of humor, which is making an absurd or exaggerated statement, the implausibility of which renders less threatening a harsh underlying message. What Hawkeye7 is saying is that he's a strong content contributor too so you shouldn't pull rank on behalf of Malleus that administrators are simpletons and unfit to render judgment on him. I do believe that administrators should avoid humor and posturing -- see my proposal on administrator decorum -- but this is hardly a mishandling of anything and in fact the position he was expressing is a widely held and important one. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse. It was yet another inappropriate comment by Hawkeye7. --Elonka 03:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see no evidence of abuse, nor even the lessor misuse, of authority or admin tools. I see a minor lapse in judgement that has more than likely self corrected. The facts in evidence support nothing more than what an admonition is designed to handle. My76Strat (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• I think there could be a finding that Hawkeye did not follow best practices to leave a clear, informative block message. Using humor or sarcasm in a block message is poor practice. Jehochman 16:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Concur with Jehochman pull yourself up of the floor Jonathon :) - poor practice. Concur with SirFozzie in the letter but not what I believe was Hawkeye's intent. Disagree with Cube lurker - I'm afraid this is being taken too literally, and whilst the written medium is a bloody poor way to communicate sarcasm (and Hawkeye should know it) the comment is so literally dripping in it, that it really can't be taken another way. Pedro :  Chat  21:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 dishonest

6)Hawkeye's block rationale was "Long term abuse." He later stated that the reason for his block was "solely for actions after being unblocked." Both cannot be true - one must be a lie.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Would prefer to see the final sentence read something to the effect of "These explanations are contradictory." Risker (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This was an error. Calling someone a f***ing c*** is uncivil, but there was no block for civility. Rather, I regarded this as part of a campaign of disruption. The block reason should have been "disruptive editing". The block was not punitive, but intended solely to preclude more of the same. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the statements may be somewhat inconsistent, it is simply unhelpful (and a total failure to assume good faith) to speak of a "lie". Remember the admin was being harshly criticised by a whole score of people, that he reacted defensively and tried to put the best justification on his activities is understandable (even if there were inconsistencies). However, I see no logical inconsistency in saying that actions after unblocking were the trigger, but the administrator's understanding that this was further evidence of "long term abuse" was the root cause. The only problem is the word "solely", but with alleged incivility we seldom block for one-off events anyway. I suspect what the admin meant (assuming good faith) is that the "actions after being unblocked" were a sufficient trigger (revealing long-term abuse), even if one discounts the trigger for the initial block. I'm not saying supposition is right, or is the only possibility, but it cannot be discounted - particularly if we are assuming good faith.--Scott Mac 18:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't correspond with the 4 point block reason posted on the blockees talk page, entered into evidence by Mkativerata.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm, granted. I missed that. But when someone is under the type of scrutiny (and downright abuse) Hawkeye7 was under after the block, a certain amount of reorganising the facts (and supplementing the rationale) in your own favour is perhaps understandable (if not justifiable or wise). However, talk of dishonesty and "lies" is unhelpful (and tends to further poison an already polarised conflict)- let's stick to "inconsistencies" (which is doubtless true), and let arbcom judge significance.--Scott Mac 18:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the key isn't the line "long term abuse" but rather "Per Consensus." "Long term abuse" was a bullet point under the underlying rationale of "Per Consensus." Also, Long Term Abuse and actions after the unblock are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But the actions after the unblock needed to be included in the rationale. If they were in fact part of the rationale to reblock, then Hawkeye failed to ennumerate the reasoning adequately. I read the reblock rationale and was incredulous. I couldn't believe that somebody had reblocked Malleus "per conensus" when such consensus didn't exist. I almost unblocked immediately, but decided to re-read the blocking statement to see if something happened that warranted a reblock. NOTHING was mentioned. So I decided to reread the discussion to see if consensus had changed overnight, it hadn't. The only reason I didn't unblock is because I was LOOKING for a rationale by which I could justify Hawkeye's actions. I couldn't find it. (Now if he had cited the FC comment, I would have accepted it, but he didn't.) The whole Hawkeye situation rests upon the question, do you take Hawkeye's initial rationale as the reasons for the reblock or do you believe that his detailed explanation merely omitted a key point in the reblocking decision? If the former, then action must be taken (including possible desysopping); if the later, then a mere slap on the wrist for not elucidating the primary reason for the reblock.---Balloonman 16:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose this provision and reject it as a fallacy. Because of an error in deductive reasoning, Hipocrite has reached a false conclusion. He asserts that two things which can, and rightfully should, coexist, can not. And that it proves Hawkeye7 "must be a liar". Why is it that a block summary of "long term abuse" can only be used if it is in conjunction with overturning John's unblock? Why would it be considered impossible to block MF for incivility against Spitfire while citing "long term abuse"? If MF was grossly uncivil today, would it seem terribly odd to any one if the blocking admin used "long term abuse" in summary? I have to go to work soon but when I return, if there are still some who believe this is impossible, I'll use mathematics and evidence to prove it is possible. My76Strat (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Or I'll evaluate the 4 point reason Cube lurker mentions and see something I missed. Peace - My76Strat (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd edit the proposal to read "Hawkeye7 contradicts self," and redact "one must be a lie," but for the many comments. Hipocrite (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. "Lie" is too strong. The real reason could be confusion, panic, or carelessness. Hawkeye7 may have had multiple reasons in mind for blocking. The prior history could be an aggravating factor when considering the recent edit. The block log message has limited space. Again, it is poor practice to leave conflicting explanations, but we should not read too much into this. Jehochman 16:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Replace "dishonest" which is heavily ladden with "inconsistent". Lie would seem to require stronger evidence then has been presented. Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7. How would you explain this reasoning based on your block explanation on the talk page. That's where the real contradiction occurs.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thumperward fails to understand civility standards

Thumperward's initial block rationale at 22:34 was "long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds." At 14:57, Thumperward stated that he "was prepared to simply chalk off as another wasted day of drama." Thumperward commented that the additional edit by MF that led to the block was this, which does not remotely violate civility standards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Thumperward fails to understand what edit warring is

Thumperward commented that he decided on a block as a result of edit warring.

From WP:EW "A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." As such, the initial revert by Prodego is bold, the revert by MF is not warring, and the partial revert by Nobody Ent is also not edit warring (due to the attempt to solve the problem with the nono template), but the revert by SarekOfVulcan (with bonus snarky edit summary) is () while the reverts by Nobody Ent and SarekOfVulcan are.

Additionally, the page was dead silent for over two hours when the block was done - an "edit war" with only one two edit warriors, with one revert each, that appears resolved, is not may not be an emergent an edit war.